CEONSS

Hello,


Heinz, are you testing these maps yourself?. I only ask because i see all these maps listed in this thread with good reviews and feedback, but we are yet to see most of these maps on the server, expect for like 2-3. Can i suggest we have some kind of testing day?. I am thinking it could be a monthly event, where on a sunday (server is full most the night), players can test new maps which you have found and then give feedback on the forum, you could also check the chat log. If your testing maps by yourself for say two hours, that is 2 hours of testing, if you have 32 players playing for 2 hours, that's 64 hours worth of testing, with many players potentially giving constructive feedback this would give allow you to add maps to the server, knowing it will be praised and also reducing the amount the negative responses when added a new map.

I'd hazard the guess that most of you were attracted to CEONSS because of the good gameplay its roster offered and the company of other players who, likewise, previously arrived for probably the same reason. Do you think the result would've been the same if the hosted content was more a loose collection of unproven betas (alongside some decent mainstays) added to the list as soon as they were discovered on some map hosting site instead of a more meticulously vetted whole measured up against some established standards of quality? By all means, people can (and should!) run through their paces in offline play all these maps proposed here (or in any other thread), compile lists and offer us any constructive criticisms they might have on how they believe those could be edited to deliver a quality result. Hell, with the zombie map program in place, if enough members become convinced we've overlooked a good map they can even put that forth as a weekly suggestion (the bar for an approval from Heinz there will likely be substantially lower), and find out how their previous gut feeling plays out in earnest - this, too, could be another avenue towards roster quality enrichment.
Outside the ZM's scope, however, I think it wouldn't be very reasonable to expect the server to waive the standard requirement of a more in-depth candidate content appraisal process by a team who've honed that ability through years of applied experience - and try to use it for the whole community's benefit - for as significant a part of its operation as 1/7th of its total uptime, or 2-3 busy hours per day, just for the sake of broadening looks/superficial variety. Not to mention the drop in substance and depth feedback usually exhibits when offered ingame instead of mulled over commentary here.

I very much get that repeated turn-downs of proposed content can feel frustrating or even disempowering to some who approach with something new in hand and the best of intentions to improve the server, but after nearly 10 years, you gotta remember, what's left unused in terms of maps isn't so much down to its unknown or undiscovered nature, but because, per "Sturgeon's Law", it's usually well within the bottom-of-the-barrel percentile margin. There's always the chance of finding a diamond in the rough and applying the bit of polish it needs to shine, but the brutal truth is that the average entry won't be that - 90% of "what remains" may not be that. There's dozens (if not over a hundred) maps to be found in that barrel if one cares to look - and, trust me, we've been dunking in there multiple times and across multiple years ourselves - so we sure as hell wouldn't be holding out on you if we did run into something good to share . Beyond that, nearly everything we do host is also in a permanent state of beta flux in terms of potential improvement (such is the nature of user-generated content communities), so no constructive criticism goes amiss.

Hope that helped.

ONS-Outback:

Size & design suited for:
+ low player counts (1-11): well fitting
o average player counts (12-22): at best, it's made for about 20 players
- high player counts (23-32): hardly playable due to choke nodes & tight rooms

Geometry:
+ symmetric design
o z-axis use: mostly 2 levels existent
- confusing labyrinths, sometimes it's hard to find the way

Nodes, link setup:
+ simple & successional layout
o cutoff possibility only between 1&3, not making a big difference
- 4 (!) choke nodes
+ sufficient hops from core to core

Desirable playstyle plurality:
+ on foot play is the main way to play here, undoubtedly
o sniping is rewarding only at few spots
+ nodes areas are restricted, therefore well defendable (except 4)
- no super weapons
+ flyers
o wheeled vehicles available, having only a limited sphere of action
o tank is there, but only in a very restricted operating area

Undesirable playstyle encouragement:
- vehicle camping is to be presumed: the tank could block anyone coming out of the corridors
+ excessive sniping is not to be expected
+ base laming is not really possible due to closed buildings and hallways
- weapon spamming is very likely within those tight corridors

Weapon & vehicle choice & balance:
- weapon lockers are incomplete
- minigun turrets at base are pretty useless
o vehicle amounts at nodes / base are average, it's mainly an on-foot map anyway
+ flyers vs. anti-aircraft: both Raptors, Mantas and Avrils are comparably existent
o special pick-ups are available but a bit too concentrated at some spots
o the tank probably is a dominating vehicle

Aesthetic aspects:
o overall look is average
+ lighting is alright
+ neutral colour theme, no team favoured

Performance / Resources:
+ no extra download packages
+ good framerates all over

Conclusion:
Four choke nodes (my goodness...), vehicles' manoeuvrabilities limited too much, incomplete weapon lockers, corridor spamming and tank camping to be presumed. Its design won't allow for a decent gameplay with higher player counts

There are 3 maps I'd like to see again:

1. The version of Nevermore that has the hammerhead, hurricanes, mino and badgers.
IMO, this one is the best of all the Nevermore versions, partly because the emphasis is tilted towards ground warfare (fewer flyers).

2. "Reichstag" (or "Reich.." something... created by VK) was also a very interesting map, sort of like a giant Spiffinggrad.

3. Dreamus... please bring this back! (if you are on a mission to get rid of "spammy" maps, then surely you must also delete MasterBath, TripleSlap, VKsPlayGround and Bitchslap as well )

Cheers

Cheese_it! wrote:then surely you must also delete ... TripleSlap, VKsPlayGround... as well )

You just signed your sentence. Beware.

:eeew:

Cheese_it! wrote:There are 3 maps I'd like to see again:

1. The version of Nevermore that has the hammerhead, hurricanes, mino and badgers.
IMO, this one is the best of all the Nevermore versions, partly because the emphasis is tilted towards ground warfare (fewer flyers).

2. "Reichstag" (or "Reich.." something... created by VK) was also a very interesting map, sort of like a giant Spiffinggrad.

3. Dreamus... please bring this back! (if you are on a mission to get rid of "spammy" maps, then surely you must also delete MasterBath, TripleSlap, VKsPlayGround and Bitchslap as well )

Cheers

There seems to be a fundamental difference of understanding in terms of what constitutes "spam" at work here - to say nothing about factors like the balance or variety of viable playstyles a map can offer. I would hope the bar for "map spamminess" rests slightly higher than being automatically assigned to any map that merely allows for the possibility that a goliath in it can one-shot a pedestrian - or any other offensive means achieving the same result, for that matter. If that were to be the yardstick for spam, we might as well dispense with the term altogether since ONS maps have been spammy from the first day Torlan and Primeval debuted. This reasoning works similarly for the other end of the spectrum too: one doesn't tag the "spammy" label to an NV map just because there's a chance the average player can get killed by stray flak shards or bio blobs. In both cases the frequency of skill-less frags has to be pronounced and consistent enough, either due to the custom content's code or because of the map's geometric design, that the notion of UT as a fair game of skill itself starts getting corroded, which is what actually cripples gameplay quality.

If you have maps where a particular playstyle - say, ground vehicle combat - heavily skews gameplay by practically invalidating any contribution from the rest to the point where the likelihood of a one-shot death becomes substantial (even if the victim is in an armoured vehicle too), that, I would hope, would be a much clearer benchmark for measuring how spammy a map is. Same for the NV maps when it comes to blind shomboing, habitual node blobbing, sniping a central area where ppl spawn without snipers, etc. In that sense, Nevermore-TMU and Reichstag are indeed spammy because overpowered vecs that generate one-shot kills there are considerably more common than is average and that often precludes fair fighting from taking place (Minos, Hurricanes, Ions, PPCs can often one-shot each other and, obviously, all weaker opponents easily). Similarly, spammy NV maps would likely include Bridge and Stonewall (dat narrow rocket spam), but not so much Playground, Maelstrom, Katharos or SpankJox.
In MasterBath and BitchSlap the armoured vec is there to provide a defensive role about as much as (if not more than) it is an offensive tool; a tank driver wasting their time on easier distant kills for fun can lose the plot, let slip other intruders and risk having their team's primaries flipped around areas where the tank won't be able to respond and pedestrian dueling will make or break the match. There's also paths an attacker can choose that with take them around, or even behind, the enemy tank and organizing a strike wave as soon as a window of opportunity opens when that gets down is also an important part of winning there. TripleSlap works in slightly more offensive terms, but you still have one enemy tank per lane you know to expect and account for and a standard goliath poses hardly unbalanced or insurmountable odds to beat. Anyway, all that reveals a lot more balancing and planning forethought from those maps' editors (IMO anyway) compared to the usual "heavy hitters roaming open terrains, fending for themselves" scenario and that's why all 3 of those maps are considered - and voted as - very successful by players of all creeds and styles.

Dreamus has some (statistically) not insignificant terrain imbalance issues that we'd finally like to take a closer look at n' see if we can't fix. It's definitely not a bad map though .

ONS-Twilight-Second-Edition:

Size & design suited for:
+ low player counts (1-11): slightly too big but playable
+ average player counts (12-22): perfect
o high player counts (23-32): too few nodes, paths & vehicles

Geometry:
+ symmetric design
+ z-axis use: 2 levels, at some places even 3

Nodes, link setup:
+ simple, clear and logical layout
o cutoff possibility given, but only between primaries, it's hard to tell offline whether that's the best choice
+ no choke nodes
o average amount of hops from core to core

Desirable playstyle plurality:
o on foot play: possible, but some jumppads are missing here and there
+ sniping: lightning guns, sniper rifles and appropriate locations available
+ node defence: cores, 1 & 2 are well protected by buildings, the rest at least in part by terrain design and / or turrets
+ super weapon available (Redeemer)
+ flyers
+ wheeled vehicles
+ tanks

Undesirable playstyle encouragement:
+ vehicle camping should be prevented by open terrain design, except for Hellbenders at 1 & 2 perhaps
+ excessive sniping is not probable due to open design
o base laming looks possible, many vehicles are unprotected outside the base buildings
+ weapon spamming unlikely due to wide area design

Weapon & vehicle choice & balance:
- weapon lockers are incomplete
o vehicle amount at base is ok, the outside nodes could need some more
+ the strongest vehicles are the tanks, rightfully placed at base
+ flyers vs. anti-aircraft appears balanced
+ the (only) super weapon, the Redeemer, has to be earned: one needs at least a flyer and has to get through the Avril rain
o pick-ups / power-ups: could be some more
+ no vehicle seems to be really dominating
- Paladins are misplaced: pretty useless on those bridges, would be more helpful if placed closer to some nodes, e.g. at 5 & 6

Aesthetic aspects:
o average overall look
+ decent lighting
+ neutral colour theme, no team favoured
+ staring statues: their glowing eyes look really spooky

Performance / Resources:
+ no extra download packages / file dependencies
+ no framerate drops

Bugs:
- floating floors at 5 & 6

Conclusion:
Medium-sized map, not remarkably good looking, no real unique ideas, but well playable for both lower & higher player counts. Many playstyles possible, only few major flaws. Therefore, it's pretty close to make it onto the server.
Someone should beef up weapon lockers, improve on-foot-playability e.g. by adding some jumppads, place the Paladins near 5/6 and some pick-ups / power-ups all around and I'd give it a try online.
Anyone?

I have just try it offline, the map is pretty implayable like this, If there is no objection i'm going to look at this, throughout the proposals are welcome of course (vehicles,weapons etc..)
May I will take the opportunity to add the new badger?

If you have several issues in mind you want to discuss and get others' input on, you can even start a dedicated thread about editing this map at the Creative Corner.

ONS-Xorion:

Size & design suited for:
+ low player counts (1-11): size & distances are small enough
+ average player counts (12-22): it's fine for up to 18 or 20 players, but too small for more
- high player counts (23-32): too small, too few nodes

Geometry:
+ symmetric design
o z-axis use: in average 2 levels only

Nodes, link setup:
+ simple, clear and logical layout
+ cutoff possibilities given
+ no choke nodes
- only few hops from core to core

Desirable playstyle plurality:
+ on foot play: only short distances to bridge
+ sniping is possible
+ node defence: nodes are covered and some turrets are available
- no super weapons
+ flyers
+ wheeled vehicles
+ tanks

Undesirable playstyle encouragement:
- vehicle camping: lots of Hellbenders and tanks combined with tight rooms and short distances will inevitably lead to quite some vec-camping
+ excessive sniping is not to be presumed, only few sniper weapons available
- base laming is likely as bases are very easy to access
+ weapon spamming shouldn't be a problem due to relatively wide areas

Weapon & vehicle choice & balance:
o weapon lockers are partly insufficient
o vehicle amounts: only Hellbenders at base, quite one-sided
- tanks as the strongest vehicles are not placed at base but at primaries which is quite problematic: comebacks will get very hard once the opponent team captures your primaries
+ flyers vs. anti-aircraft: either Hellbenders or Avrils can deal with flyers
o only few pick-ups / power-ups
o the combo of tanks & short distances could make them dominating

Aesthetic aspects:
o average overall look, nothing overly special
o lighting: a bit too bright, sometimes blinding
- colour theme favours blue
- no special effects, no unique ideas

Performance / Resources:
+ no extra download packages / file dependencies
+ no framerate drops

Conclusion:
Several shortcomings like 32p-infeasibility, vehicle placing & camping suitability, suboptimal lighting and team favoring by colour theme. There's no single special idea contained outweighing this.

ONS-TWMushroomForest:
No joke vehicles / maps please.